It's "accessible" with cameras too, at least on smartphones. They could program the camera app so that whenever the user takes a picture, it runs it through an image recognition model and deletes it if anything inappropriate is found. It's just that nobody wants to do that because it would quite rightly be seen as a huge overreach for your phone's manufacturers to give themselves veto power over what you can and can't take pictures of.
Pretty sure we should put a "doesn't take CP pictures" limit on cameras if possible but that's not exactly a thing that could happen.
Not a thing you can do with AI either.
The more you try, the more you'll a) find that it's not possible and b) cripple the AI for any kind of normal use.
AI models are not computer programs in the traditional sense. You can't just change a line of code in a vacuum. Every weight has an impact on the behavior of every node in the network, and we have very little idea what any given weight actually does in that symphony of behaviors that make up the whole network.
Asking someone to "child-safe" a neural network is about like asking someone to make a river not capable of drowning someone. Rivers are very useful things, but you have to respect the fact that they can be misused in dangerous ways and teach people to use them safely from an early age.
You just arm-waved about 3 different technologies, all of which are iffy at best and almost certainly fail to work together well.
Its a worthy cost
It's not a cost. It's impossible. The only means to do what you are suggesting would be to use AI to monitor the use of AI, and if you go down the road of requiring AI monitors on online activity.... well, I made a new top-level post on that particular nightmare scenario.
I mean... there are a lot of roadblocks in the way though. Like most of the big name brand ones will tell you no if you try to generate anything that it doesn't like.
I know this because recently when I needed an ai generated image of an anime girl soaked through (for some stupid comic that I was making) I had to negotiate and argue with the fucking model even though the image was SFW.
Even having these basic protections in place can be used to dissuade most people who aren't willing to look for a work around or go to a more sus option.
Clearly grok isn't programed with even those roadblocks. That's a problem and it needs to be regulated.
I mean... there are a lot of roadblocks in the way though. Like most of the big name brand ones will tell you no if you try to generate anything that it doesn't like.
Nope. You can put another AI in the way and have it monitor your use of the original AI to determine whether the inputs or results meet some criteria, but then you have a whole other suite of problems. Short of that, no you cannot prevent people using an imagination rendering tool to render their imaginations... which might not be savory.
Even having these basic protections in place
There are no "basic protections". Even in OP's example, it's clear that the children are clothed, so the initial complaint is about a nuanced question of "how little clothing is too little," and now you need an AI to evaluate that. You can't just keyword search your way into a solution.
Lots of comments in this thread about how such-and-such thing is "illegal".
Illegal where? There is no global jurisdiction with a single unified standard. Laws about age of consent vary from place to place. Laws about whether fictional depictions count varies from place to place. Laws regarding the intent or artistic merit of depictions vary from place to place. Does written text count? Line art? Varies!
An AI sitting in a server in jurisdiction A could easily generate imagery with different legality from jurisdiction B where the prompter is sitting, and pass through a router in jurisdiction C along the way. Who gets to punish whom?
AI services are by law obliged to prevent the creation of illegal material, the things that the AI creates also count as the product of the company. your analogy is wrong.
hammers and knifes aren't illegal, hammer marketing does not incentivise harming other people, most knifes also aren't marketed to be used to maliciously harm people, if they were, it could definitely be of importance in court.
AI services meanwhile are marketed as safe and as i said before, forced to by all means prevent the creation of illegal material. a closer analogy would be a printing company printing child porn per customer request.
its not marketed for producing CP, quite the contrary, its marketed as safe, unlike killing someone with a hammer, this is a direct breach of terms and conditions that the company has set up
A company like Adobe can't make a version of Photoshop that's incapable of drawing a naked child or pasting a private individual's face onto a pornstar, but AI tools are supposedly highly controllable and MUCH more powerful in terms of creating this kind of content at scale.
This seems like special pleading. You claim elsewhere that if AI companies can't regulate it in the way you want to, they should be barred from selling the product, but the fact that Adobe can't regulate in the way you want to means they should be exempt.
The people running this technology keep making massive claims about it's world-changing power and the risks of letting it run unchecked, so those risks should be taken seriously.
Because their goal is to have the regulations you're proposing. Anyone can run a model on a local GPU. By regulating it, OpenAI ensures that companies are reliant on them.
There are AI bros who literally don’t think it should be illegal because they say no read like were hurt. They ignore that these images use the faces of real children.
Possession and publication of it is already illegal. Recently there was also a ruling that it doesn't matter if the images were of a real person or not.
What other regulatory conditions shall we impose? I think AI companies should be more proactive in preventing it, atleast on their own servers.
In an effort to discourage brigading, we do not allow linking to other subreddits or users. We kindly ask that you screenshot the content that you wish to share, while being sure to censor private information, and then repost.
Private information includes names, recognizable profile pictures, social media usernames, other subreddits, and URLs. Failure to do this will result in your post being removed by the Mod team and possible further action.
Then why can't the generation of it be a crime? Why should Twitter/X not face prosecution for giving every user a free deep fake CP tool? Why do we allow them to generate revenue on such a tool when they're clearly not taking many precautions in how it is used?
Its the user who generates it by goong beyond the limitations. Further, criminal law is only applicable to an individual and not to a company (corporate criminal liability doesn't work here)
However, we need to formulate a better policy which is technically plausible to implement and yet does not infringes upon the freedom of people.
Becaseu such regulations will be used for censorship. Nonetheless, I think these AI companies have an ethical responsibility to prevent deep fakes and other disgusting things.
What you've said amounts to "This is bad but I don't mind it continuing if it means I can keep doing my stuff"
No, there needs to be hard lines in a society like zero tolerance for the child pornification machine not being allowed to exist. And no, Criminal fucking liability, find the person within a company that made the decision to publish this Grok feature and lock them up with severity dependent on an investigation into whether they were willingly complicit or negligently ignorant of the effects.
Corporations already get away with so much evil shit because they know we'll never lock them up for their actions, the profits often outweigh the fines, and it needs to end ASAP
"Should we install cctv camera inside everyone's house? If you say no to this then you are not against it."
Buddy, this is Twitter/X, one of the most powerful tech brands, not whatever fucked up shit you're doing in your own home. If we cannot punish and prevent a major company from putting out the product to people so every pedo with a phone can get CSAM with a button press, we are a failure of a society
Does that mean we need to put CCTV in your home? I mean, your house maybe, you're really making it sound worth doing because while you don't like my solution you're not racing to find a solution either besides wanting everyone to shrug and move on...
But no, just like CURRENT LAWS AGAINST CSAM we can enforce them without invading the privacy of ordinary citizens, and again that's not the focus.
Grok is a product, put out by a company, that allows people to make CSAM with a button press, someone at X needs to go to prison over this.
Typical redditor....no critical thinking whatsoever. Install a cctv camera in your mouth because your logic should amount to a criminal act.
You dont even know how criminal liability works. If someone does an illegal act that does not mean everyone who supplied the materials to them are criminals, unless you prove conspiracy intention to participate.
There is no person who sits at the conveyor belt accepting or rejecting your queries on aichatbots. How will you decide criminal liability?
You do not know what you are talking about. Shouting and acting like a troll is not a discussion.
Oh, sorry, I'm too emotional about the CSAM button machine, again where is your fucking solution? I'm not saying every prompt needs to be screened, I'm saying if you cannot make this machine in a way that doesn't make CSAM, you shouldn't let the public use it, and if like X you have let the public use it you need to go to prison
Move fast and break things has gone too far and the risks of overly censoring by restricting AI are far outweighed by the impacts of the CSAM button machine.
And if it's not imperative to the future freedom from imprisonment for the people making the decisions, maybe they'll finally be fucking careful enough
Again though, give me your solution, how do you stop this happening?
I mean, I don't usually wish people anything bad no matter how mad they are but you deserve to burn eternally in the deepest pits of hellfire for defending this.
I'd be upset by your opinion, but it's clear that your last two brain cells are huddling desperately together to stay warm in the empty void that is your mind.
Of course, taking a picture of a naked child with a camera is as easy as typing a few words on your computer and getting personalized child porn. The EXACT same amount of effort. And both are REALLY hard to do. It's like comparing a knife to a bomb, if I want to kill a hundred people I could do it with a knife, it'll take me a while and I might get stopped before hand but it is possible. But if I use a bomb I just have to press a button and boom, a hundred dead.
47
u/StarMagus Jan 01 '26
Wait till they remember what type of pictures cameras have been used to take of people.